Bolts Magazine. I see this story as relevant to a basic question that I think is going to confront the field of election law (and, more broadly, the law of democratic procedures) over the next decade or so: the extent to which decisions should be made on the basis of majority rule. Watching the fight over Issue 1 unfold in Ohio, I became convinced of the importance of preserving the right of the citizenry to control the machinery of their self-government by means of a majority vote. I recognize that there have been arguments in favor of a supermajority requirement for constitutional change, but on balance I think the risk of “minority rule” through a supermajority requirement is greater than the risk of an oppressive majority. Certainly, it would have been a serious problem for self-government in Ohio if Issue 1 had prevailed in raising the threshold for constitutional change to 60%. That would have made it extremely difficult to adopt new anti-gerrymandering reform, for example, to redress the way that incumbent politicians managed to negate the efficacy of the previous anti-gerrymandering reforms in the state during the last decade.